Upload
brandy-bamford
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DATE: APRIL 9, 2013
TOPIC: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
AIM: HOW IS THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION PRESENTED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
DO NOW: INCORPORATION DOCTRINE – WHAT IS IT?
FIRST AMENDMENT. • Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
THESE ARE FREEDOMS OF EXPRESSION – NOTICE THAT EXPRESSION HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE AMENDMENT.
SPECH AND NATIONAL SECURITY
• PRIOR RESTRAINT – CENSORSHIP – SAY IT WITH ME!
• Schenck v. United States (1919) – establishes the clear and present danger test on speech.
• Supreme Court has ruled continuously in favor of expression rights:
• a.) Calculated to incite – overthrow of government.
• b.) Would the speech cause imminent unlawful action.
• c.) Symbols are protected – they would have to cause direct harm – displaying the symbol is not enough.
WHY WOULD THE SUPREME COURT RULE THIS WAY?
FOUR FORMS OF SPEECH NOT GIVEN FULL PROTECTION.
• A.) Libel – writing that defames the character of another person.
• United States – you must show that the statement was false.
• Show statement made with actual malice – knowledge that the words were false.
• New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – to libel a public figure there must be actual malice.
• b.) Obscenity – has no redeeming social value.
• What is obscene?
• Miller v. California (1973) – obscenity defined as prurient interests of an average person with materials that lack literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
• c.) Symbolic Speech
• How can we define symbolic speech?
• Burning a draft card considered illegal – US can protect the draft cards.
• Not the flag – that can only be defined as speech and to limit that would be wrong.
• Texas v. Johnson (1989) – there may not be a law banning flag burning.
FOUR FORMS OF SPEECH NOT GIVEN FULL PROTECTION.
• d.) Corporate and Youthful Speech
• Where have we seen corporate speech protected already?
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
• Restriction to corporations placed on advertising alcohol and gambling.
• Young people may have less free speech than adults.
• Have we seen this before?
• Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) – the principal could censor articles appearing in the school newspaper.
• Morse v. Frederick (2007) – the principal can limit the speech that promotes drug use.
FOUR FORMS OF SPEECH NOT GIVEN FULL PROTECTION.
BETHEL V FRASER - SPEECH GIVEN BY MATTHEW FRASER
• Matthew Fraser gave the following speech at a high school assembly in support of a candidate for student government office: "I know a man who is firm -- he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm -- but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.
• Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts -- he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally -- he succeeds.
• Jeff is a man who will go to the very end -- even the climax, for each and every one of you.
• So vote for Jeff for A. S. B. vice-president -- he'll never come between you and the best our high school can be."
TINKER V. DESMOINES (1968) – the wearing of black armbands did not violate the first amendment